The Economics of Genocide

Aplia Econ Blog has an interesting post on the economics of genocide:

---

A recent op-ed by Alan J. Kuperman in the New York Times entitled "Strategic Victimhood in Sudan" advances a controversial theory: that rebel leaders in the Darfur region of Sudan share responsibility for the continued atrocities befalling their own people. Kuperman argues that the Save Darfur movement, made primarily of concerned Westerners, should stop interfering if it wants the genocide to end.

According to Kuperman, "the rebels were willing to let genocide continue against their own people rather than compromise their demand for power."

---

They then go on to quote Kuperman:

---

The rebels, much weaker than the government, would logically have sued for peace long ago. Because of the Save Darfur movement, however, the rebels believe that the longer they provoke genocidal retaliation, the more the West will pressure Sudan to hand them control of the region. Sadly, this message was reinforced when the rebels' initial rejection of peace last month was rewarded by American officials' extracting further concessions from Khartoum.

---

They represent his argument using game theory:

US INTERVENES -- Rebels Continue the Genocide



US DOES NOT INTERVENE -- Rebels Stop The Genocide

Aplia Econ Blog then goes on to raise great questions about the validity of this thinking. Read the whole post. It raises some great questions to think about.

This issue is particularly meaningful to me on several fronts. First, I have been researching the economics of reconciliation over the past few months, focusing particularly on reconciliation in Rwanda. In order to understand the reconciliation, it is also important to understand the genocide.

Second, I was active in attending the Save Darfur Rally and encouraged others to go. I did this out of a desire to help end the genocide in Darfur. If Kuperman is correct, this may have been counterproductive to our intended goal.

You can read more of my thoughts on Rwanda and reconiliation here, here, and here.

You can read more of my thoughts on Darfur here, here, here, and here.

More on Mercenaries

Looks like I'm not the only one at GMU writing about the use of mercenaries in Darfur:

---

U.S. forces are stretched thin by ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are rightly distracted by the need to keep military options open against soon-to-be-nuclear, apocalyptically minded, Iran. Meanwhile, as we noted in our earlier essay, other nations are reluctant to commit enough forces to shore up the undermanned "peacekeeping" operations of the African Union. So it's hard to imagine how sufficient resources will be found to take care of one task that could literally mean the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands in Darfur: the protection of the camps where they have gathered and where they receive humanitarian relief. It's not asking much, but for now protection of these camps from Janjaweed killers seems beyond the capabilities of the international community -- unless, that is, we are willing to look outside the box and turn to private military companies (PMCs).

If no one else has the courage and will to act in Darfur, why doesn't the UN, or NATO for that matter, contract out the problem and let the free market save countless lives? If the African Union, whose troops are notoriously ineffective, finds the PMC option unpalatable, perhaps the credible threat of its use might compel the regional organization to come up with an alternative that will actually save the lives of innocent Darfurians, rather than merely observe their extermination.

---

Read the whole thing! There is much here worth considering.

See my previous thoughts on this issue here.

Send In the Mercenaries?

While discussing the Darfur rally and the situation over there with my friend Noah yesterday, he suggested: "Why not use mercenaries?"

Apparently, he's not the only one who thinks this is a good idea:

---

That's the central message of this opinion piece by Rebecca Ulam Weiner.

Three years of fighting in the Darfur region of Sudan have left an estimated 180,000 dead and nearly 2 million refugees. In recent weeks, both the UN and the US have turned up the volume of their demands to end the violence (which the Bush administration has publicly called genocide), but they've been hard pressed to turn their exhortations into action. The government in Khartoum has scuttled the UN's plans to take control of the troubled peacekeeping operations currently being led by the African Union, and NATO recently stated publicly that a force of its own in Darfur is "out of the question." Meanwhile, refugee camps and humanitarian aid workers continue to be attacked, and the 7,000 African Union troops remain overstretched and ineffective.

But according to J. Cofer Black, vice chairman of the private security firm Blackwater, there is another option that ought to be on the table: an organization that could commit significant resources and expertise to bolster the African Union peacekeepers and provide emergency support to their flagging mission.

This is the solution to some of Africa's many civil wars that I have favored for years, not because it is a good solution, but because it is the least bad solution available. UN forces have been — at best — ineffectual, in many of these conflicts, because the UN soldiers are too few, too poorly trained, too poorly equipped, and too undisciplined. Nations that do have effective military forces are unwilling to commit them to Africa. But the military tasks are often small enough so that they could be handled by mercenaries. (Sorry, private security firms.)

---

I am not convinced that a mercenary option would be politically viable on multiple fronts -- including acceptance by the US, UN, China, Russia, and others who would have the power to stop a mercenary army from going in. I particularly think this would be a problem due to the oil and uranium supplies in Sudan. Additionally, I'm sure the precedent would scare many nations, raising additional objections. If this army was funded through private charity it might be difficult to raise funds. What would the advertising campaign be? "Donate a dollar to deter death with a gun?"

Having said all of this, from a humanitarian and economic perspective, it is an intriguing notion. Is there any significant moral distinction between sending in a government vs. non-governmental army? Would the potential benefits outweigh the costs? I think this statement makes a particularly poignant point:

---

The "international community", specifically the UN, does prefer genocide to using mercenaries. I was not surprised to learn, for example, that Kofi Annan had specifically rejected using a private firm during what Weiner calls the "Rwandan refugee crisis". (I assume she is talking about the time after the genocide.)

---

I didn't know there was consideration of using a private army in Rwanda? I wonder how much it might have helped? My guess is that they could have done quite a bit of good and prevented many deaths.

As uncomfortable as many would be with the thought of raising a private army to intervene, is this truly a worse option than genocide? It certainly brings up many moral questions: When is it right to use force to stop force? What is the moral distinction between public and private armies? Why is one allowed and the other more restricted? If the resources and will was available to raise such an army, what are the probabilities there would be political maneuvers to block their entry into Darfur?

We discussed similar issues during Loren Lomasky's visit to GMU. His take was that there was a moral duty for the actors (i.e. governments) most able to take action to help in humanitarian crises such as this.

My guess is that many from the rally yesterday would be horrified to think about sending in a private force of mercenaries, but would have no problems whatsoever with the same actions being taken under the banner of the UN and/or US. Very interesting...

I'm still trying to figure out my thoughts on this. As an economist, I am intrigued by the thought of how well this might work and what political incentives might keep it from happening. As a Christian, I am a bit more reserved in endorsing the private use of force, but also can't get around the thought that it might prevent many deaths. Is it worth the sacrifice of many lives just to take a "moral highground"? Just how moral is that?

The thought of using "mercenaries" also makes me wonder if a security force could be used by developing nations to effectively "outsource" rule of law? Perhaps this could be a new form of foreign aid -- using money collected either publicly or privately to fund armed security forces to provide protection and law enforcement to people in those countries. If used in conjunction with some type of corresponding mechanism/process/organization to help design and run a court-system, it might be used as a temporary measure to help transition developing countries into more stable, growing economies.

Does anyone have any thoughts on these issues? Additionally, any thoughts on what action the US government and UN should or should not take in the Darfur situation?

Rally for Darfur

I went to the Rally for Darfur in DC with some friends from church today. I was very impressed with both the speakers and the turn-out! It was a great example of how people from all parts of the political and ideological spectrums can come together to work on issues where they can find common ground. I have no idea how to estimate the numbers of a crowd that size, but would guess it was at least around 100,000 people there.

Speakers ranged from holocaust survivors (including Elie Wiesel), Paul Rusesabagina (who saved 1,200 lives during the Rwandan genocide), politicians (including Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, and many others), human rights activists, religions leaders of all persuasions (Catholic, Protestant Evangelical Christians, Muslim, Jew, Sikh, and more), Republican, Democrats, and many more. I was very impressed with how civil they kept their comments, with only minor and infrequent compliments and jabs at President Bush, and most of them given with respect.

I give a lot of credit to the organizers of the event for keeping it very civil. Unfortunately, the rally lasted longer than advertised and I had to leave before it was completely finished. I missed George Clooney’s speech, which seemed to be the one everyone was most looking forward to.

A few of my favorite quotes from today included:

---

“We need to get our politicians to move from the margin of reports to the center of action.” – Joe Madison, Emcee

“If Johnny Cochran and Kenneth Star can come together to save Darfur, you know the world can.” – Joe Madison, Emcee

“Stand-up America, and the killers will stand down.” – Bosnian genocide survivor

“People who fight for their own rights are honorable only as far as they fight for the rights of all people.” – one of the Rabbis

“Efforts do not equal results.” – NAACP representative (Crispian Kirk?)

---

Here are a few pictures I took from the rally:

(click images for larger view)







I thought this sign was particularly poignant in the message it conveyed:



Despite whatever political disagreements I might have with him, I thought Al Sharpton was by far the best speaker. He conveyed passion, conviction and received a tremendous response from the entire crowd. Truly a gifted example of how public speaking should be done.



Lastly, here’s a picture of me and some of my friends who came. (From left to right – Rachel, Catherine, Coit and me. Tom also came, but was looking for a t-shirt when we took the picture.)



Whatever your political convictions or thoughts on the best way to handle the situation in Darfur, please pray for the people over there. It truly is a tragic situation and they estimate at least 400,000 have been killed so far with no end it sight.

I’d like to give special thanks to the organizer of the event and to all the speakers and crowd who came out today. It was a great event and I hope it leads to changes in policies that save lives in Darfur. I think everyone can agree that this would be a tremendously wonderful thing.

See my previous posts on Darfur here, here, and here.

SAVE DARFUR: Rally to Stop Genocide

There will be a rally for Darfur this Sunday, April 30th from 2:00 to 4:30 pm on the National Mall:

---

"The Rally to Stop Genocide" is organized by the Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of more than 155 faith-based, humanitarian and human rights organizations. http://www.savedarfur.org/

The rally is part of the "Million Voices for Darfur" campaign to generate one million postcards for delivery to President Bush, who recently pledged to push for additional UN and NATO help to protect the people of Darfur. We applaud the President's leadership, but the work is far from done. We are urging President Bush to take steps necessary to end the genocide and build a lasting peace.

The rally is also the final stop of the "Tour for Darfur: Eyewitness to Genocide," a 21,000 mile photo exhibit and speaking tour of 22 cities in 11 states to raise public awareness about the Darfur crisis. The tour's featured speaker is Brian Steidle, a former Marine captain and U.S. representative to the African Union's peacekeeping mission in Darfur from September 2004 to February 2005.

---

Speakers will include Elie Wiesel (Nobel Prize for Peace [1986], Holocaust survivor), Paul Rusesabagina (Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient whose story was depicted in the movie Hotel Rwanda), Dr. Richard Land (President, Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberties Commission), U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (California), George Clooney (Academy Award Winner) and more.

Anytime you can get people as diverse as Nancy Pelosi, George Clooney and the Southern Baptists working together, you know it’s probably something really good addressing something really bad. I am encouraged to see all of these people coming together to try to bring awareness and action against the terrible atrocities happening in Darfur. I commend all of them for caring about this situation and for using their influence in this way. Regardless of where you stand on the political divide, I think we can all agree to be united in our stand against this genocide.

If you are in the DC area and able to make it out to this, please do attend. I plan on being there.

I was just writing about the world’s inaction in response to Darfur yesterday. I never expected my post to generate this big of a response! :)

Read more about the rally here and more about the genocide in Darfur here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Check out the latest news on what’s going on in Darfur here, here, here, here and here.

See my previous posts on Darfur here and here.

Charting a Route to Restoration in Rwanda

I am currently working on research about the economics of reconciliation, with special focus on the Rwandan genocide. I just received an e-mail from Catherine Claire, one of the members of the church I attend, with a link to this excellent article by her about the Rwandan genocide and the problems, progress and necessity for reconciliation:

---

The machete gash across the face of Emmanuel Mahuro, a 16-year-old Rwandan native, is no longer an open wound. Today, like a jagged boundary line on a map, a scar juts down the plateau of his forehead, across the bridge of his nose, and up the hill of his right cheek.

It is impossible to look into Emmanuel’s eyes without also seeing this deep-cut ravine, a natural border-line of division etched across his face, the face of Rwanda, 12 years after the genocide.

To recall April 1994 and the onslaught of the 100 days of slaughter is to unleash memories of horror: men, women, and children hacked to death by machetes; mothers forced to dash their own babies against the walls; women raped; children burned alive. The scope of brutality exceeded the capabilities of the imagination; the rate of killing exceeded even that of the Nazis. By the time it was over, more than one million Rwandans were dead--this, in a country of just 8.5 million people.

A few years later, more than 110,000 men and women guilty of these atrocious crimes swelled Rwanda’s overcrowded prisons. Now, as tens of thousands of them are released, old wounds are re-opened. The horrifying memories of these slayings haunt everyone involved, irrespective of their role--survivor, orphan, widow, or perpetrator. One cannot chart a route to restoration in Rwanda without involving all of them and without returning to the boundary lines of genocide’s wounds. If this gash across the face of Rwanda can be stitched back together, repentance and forgiveness are the only thread strong enough to bind.

---

Read the whole thing! It is truly excellent! I had the privilege of meeting both Bishop John Rucyahana and Pastor Sam Mugisha who are mentioned in the article. Both are great men and give me strong hope and encouragement for the future of Rwanda.

Here are links to some of my previous posts relating to Rwanda and/or reconciliation:

• The Economics of Forgiveness
• Another Rwanda?
• Solutions to Poverty in Africa
• Hotel Rwanda

Also, please be aware of what's currently going on in Darfur. It looks like a repeat of what happened in Rwanda in 1994. Will this be another situation in which the world does nothing until after it's too late?

I visited the Dachau concentration camp just outside of Munich Germany in August, 2004. Here is a picture I took of a memorial there which reads "Never Again".


(click for larger image)

That's the same thing pledged after the Rwandan genocide. At this point, shouldn't we be saying "Yet Again"?

Another Rwanda?

Thursday marked the 12th anniversary of the beginning of the genocide in Rwanda. Today’s Opinion Journal has an article by Paul Rusesabagina, the hero of Hotel Rwanda. In it he discusses how today’s situation in Darfur is like Rwanda in 1994:

---

History shows us that genocides can happen only if four important conditions are in place. There must be the cover of a war. Ethnic grievances must be manipulated and exaggerated. Ordinary citizens must be deputized by their government to become executioners. And the rest of the world must be persuaded to look away and do nothing. This last is the most shameful of all, especially so because genocide is happening again right now in the Darfur region of Sudan, and the world community has done precious little to stop the killings.

What is happening in Darfur is exactly what happened in my home country of Rwanda, which was left to choke on its own blood from April to July of 1994.

The real lesson here is that the United Nations is in need of not only reform but also a basic rethinking of its peacekeeping philosophy. World governments must agree that the extinction of a race is a crime worth stopping at any cost, and back up this sentiment with action. And the U.N. Security Council must create a tool that it has lacked for far too long--a small multinational "rapid response" force which can quickly airlift tanks, jeeps, helicopters and troops to spots where the evidence of genocide is overwhelming.

Such a force would not require endless dickering, delicacy and will-testing; it should be made up of no more than 10,000 troops and deployed only in extreme situations, because its real power is not in its gun barrels--it is in the message to genocidal regimes that the world will refuse to overlook atrocities. This would have stopped the Rwanda tragedy from happening, probably without a shot being fired. It could now stop Darfur from getting worse, with similar ease.

History offers us another lesson about genocides: The apologies, recriminations and resolutions of Never Again usually begin after the genocide is safely finished and it becomes safe once more to mourn the lack of action. That should not happen this time. The proposed extinction of an entire race should now be considered an override clause to the rule of national sovereignty. Rwanda is over and everybody mourns it comfortably. We ought not to wait until Darfur is over to start saying Never Again yet again.

---

I hope and pray that the world will not hesitate to act this time. Anyone have any thoughts on how we might best exert pressure to influence our politicians to take action? Any thoughts on what actions should be taken?

Mr. Rusesabagina will be speaking at George Mason this Monday at 7:30 PM in the Center for the Arts.

More about the 12th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide here and here.